Mechanical Metaphors in Unlocking The Mystery of Life
Paul J. Wendel
Paper presented at the Ninth International History,
Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference
University of Calgary
Alberta, Canada
June 25-28, 2007
Mechanical Metaphors in Unlocking The Mystery of Life
PAUL J. WENDEL
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies, 410 White Hall, Kent State
University, Kent, OH 44242, USA. email: [email protected]
Abstract: In the Aristotelian heritage of modern science, matter was lively. Yet with the
acceptance of “mechanical philosophy” during the Enlightenment, this animistic view of
matter came to an end. Concerned with the religious implications of this de-spiritualization
of matter, religious mechanical philosophers such as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton attempted
but ultimately failed to find a role for God in a mechanistic universe. In order to provide
evidence for the existence of God, the Intelligent Design video Unlocking the Mystery of Life
(Meyer & Allen 2002) adopts a mechanistic view of cellular biology, similar in many ways to
the mechanistic viewpoint promoted by Rene´ Descartes. I conclude with an examination of the
apparent incompatibility of this mechanistic viewpoint with American fundamentalism.
Creationists find a receptive audience in the United States. Nearly half of Americans reject the
theory of evolution, and more than half reject human evolution (CBS News 2005;
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2005). In recent decades, at least four major
creationist organizations have arisen to support and exploit these sentiments, largely through
print media and video production (Answers in Genesis 2006; Creation Research Society 2006;
Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture 2006; Institute for Creation Research 2006).
Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Meyer & Allen 2002) is a particularly popular and successful
creationist video. The first production of Illustra Media, an affiliate of the Discovery Institute’s
Center for Science and Culture (2006), Unlocking the Mystery of Life (hereafter UMOL) mounts
a biological version of the ‘Intelligent Design’ argument (hereafter ID), namely that various
cellular structures and processes are ‘irreducibly complex’, i. e. they could not have evolved
through natural selection. UMOL is well written, superbly animated, accompanied by a first-rate
orchestral score, and very popular. According to the Discovery Institute (2006), UMOL has
aired on Public Broadcast System stations in ten states, and as of June 2006, over 136,000 copies
had been produced in DVD or VHS (Ray 2006). Because of its use in Sunday school classes,
each copy is typically seen by numerous people, and Illustra has organized the material into a
1
special classroom version to encourage use in educational settings (Meyer & Allen 2004). Thus
a substantial proportion of U. S. science students have seen UMOL or are familiar with its
arguments. As we shall see, these arguments have an interesting historical antecedent.
The Scientific Revolution and the De-spiritualization of matter
With the notable exception of atomists such as Democritus and Epicurus, ancient Greek thinkers
generally took an animistic view of the world. Not just humans, but animals, plants and rocks all
possessed souls and acted with intention. In the Aristotelian world picture, for example, a
dropped stone did not fall because of an external force, but because it actively sought its natural
place, the center of the world. Similarly the Aristotelian celestial sphere was not turned by
outside forces, but moved out of love for the Prime Mover (Dijksterhuis 1961, p. 35). As the
Greek heritage, and particularly the work of Aristotle, was gradually rediscovered and adopted
during the European Middle Ages, this animistic inclination pervaded European natural
philosophy. Even as late as the 17th century a careful empirical investigator such as William
Gilbert could explain the earth’s rotation as a wise response of the earth’s soul to the need to
prevent scorching on one side and freezing on the other, or describe magnetism in terms of
sexual attraction (Westfall 1971, p. 27). Yet as the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th
centuries progressed, mechanical metaphors gradually replaced animistic metaphors.
Rene´ Descartes was particularly influential in the mechanization of the world and the
elimination of ‘occult qualities’ from matter. Descartes promoted a ‘mechanical philosophy’ by
which all physical phenomena are caused by direct contact between corpuscles. Where Gilbert
postulated lively souls in magnets, Descartes postulated tiny screw-shaped particles whose
turning motion draws magnets together (Westfall 1971, pp. 36-37). Even living things were
2
machines for Descartes. Humans were distinct from animals in possessing a soul, but such a soul
was inessential to the living body:
[I]f the body of man be considered as a kind of machine, so made up and composed of
bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood, and skin, that although there were in it no mind, it
would still exhibit the same motions which it at present manifests involuntarily, and
therefore without the aid of the mind . . . (Descartes 1641, part VI, section 17)
The mind inhabits the human body, but the mind is not what keeps it alive. God performs a soul
implant at birth and a soulechtomy at death (Peters 2000), and between birth and death, to adopt
Gilbert Ryle’s (1984/1949) wry phrase, a Cartesian person is a ‘ghost in a machine.’ Since
Descartes, this view of humanity has been taken for granted in the Western world.
Religiously observant mechanical philosophers of the 17th century recognized a danger in
such a ‘mechanization of the world picture’, namely that following the act of creation, God
would become irrelevant. Thus like Descartes before him, devout Christian Robert Boyle
credited God with imparting the human soul at birth and with preventing the world from
degrading to chaos through his ‘general concourse.’ (Burtt 1932, pp. 191-195). Isaac Newton
credited God with preventing the fixed stars from gravitationally collapsing into one another,
occasionally restoring the motions of the planets and comets as they were apt to go awry, and
restoring the motions of atoms following their (inelastic) collisions (Burtt 1932, pp. 191-193;
Scott 1970). But other mechanical philosophers recognized that the roles assigned to God by
Newton and Boyle were of an ad-hoc, inessential nature. Gottfried Leibniz, for example,
criticized the restorative functions assigned to God by Newton, noting that God must be a poor
craftsman if he must ‘wind up his watch from time to time’ or periodically intervene to correct
defects in the solar system (Ribas 2003). Similarly Pierre-Simon LaPlace demonstrated that all
of the planetary irregularities which concerned Newton were periodical (Burtt 1932, p. 295),
leading to the legend that LaPlace claimed to ‘have no need for the God hypothesis.’ With the
3
rise of the theory of evolution by natural selection in the 19th century, the mechanical philosophy
was extended even to the generation of new species (Greene 1959), so eventually no science had
need of the God hypothesis.
The Mechanized World of UMOL
Paradoxically, UMOL embraces a mechanistic philosophy in order to reinstate the God
hypothesis. UMOL’s central argument is that certain cellular structures and processes could not
have evolved, so a designer must have created them all at once as complete structures. Although
this designer remains unnamed, the Judeo-Christian God is clearly the prime candidate. In order
to make the case for a designer, writers/producers Stephen C. Meyer and W. Peter Allen employ
numerous industrial metaphors. Bacteria are described as being ‘packed with circuits, assembly
instructions, and miniature machines.’ (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 11). Microbiologist Michael
Behe (Lehigh University) emphasizes the ubiquity of these technologies:
At the very basis of life, where molecules and cells run the show, we’ve discovered
machines. Literally, molecular machines. There are little molecular trucks that carry
supplies from one end of the cell to the other. There are machines which capture the
energy from sunlight and turn it into useable energy. (Meyer & Allen 2005, pp. 11-12)
In total, 39 variants of the word ‘machine’ appear in UMOL, including 11 uses of ‘molecular
machine’ alone.
Meyer and Allen’s commitment to the machine metaphor is particularly evident in the
discussion of the bacterial flagellum. Michael Behe recalls his first encounter with the
flagellum:
It had a propeller and hook region and the drive shaft and the motor and so I looked at
that and I said, ‘That’s an outboard motor. That, that’s designed! That’s no chance
assemblage of parts.’ (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 12)
Microbiologist Scott Minnich (University of Idaho) adds:
The bacterial flagellum—two gears, forward and reverse, water-cooled, proton motive
force. It has a stator, it has a rotor, it has a U-joint, it has a drive shaft, it has a propeller.
4
And they function as these parts of machines . . . (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 13)
Behe and Minnich’s enthusiastic commentary establish the correspondence of a flagellum to an
outboard motor, while animation wizards Tim Doherty and Jerry Harned illustrate the point.
Starting with an ‘electron micrograph’ of a ‘flagellar motor’, (fig. 1), Doherty and Harned add a
shaft with a gear on its end (fig. 2), then gradually add structural elements (figs. 3-4). In figures
2-4, we see essential parts of an outboard motor: a shaft, a gear, and collars resembling bearings.
Furthermore, like an old outboard motor, many of these parts are the color of rusting steel.
Doherty and Harned also show the viewer that like all machines, the flagellum has a blueprint
(fig. 5), and such planning, of course, implies a Designer.
Figure 1: An ‘electron micrograph’ of a flagellar motor (UMOL 16:45).
Figure 2: The animators overlay a driveshaft and gear to the electron
micrograph (UMOL 16:52). Note that the gear is the color of
rusting steel.
5
Figure 3: Bearings are added, also the color of rusting steel
(UMOL 16:57).
Figure 4: The animators have replaced the original electron micrograph
with a complete ‘flagellar motor.’ (UMOL 17:04).
Figure 5: Flagellar blueprints (UMOL 26:11).
In their animation of cellular protein synthesis, Doherty and Harned exchange images of
rusty low-tech gears for advanced materials and processes, evoking a futuristic, science-fictionlike world. DNA is imaged as a chain of interchangeable plastic parts (figs. 6-7). A “molecular
machine” unwinds a DNA strand (fig. 8), then another molecular machine constructs RNA (fig.
9). In Figure 10, a ‘molecular factory’ (the ribosome) manufactures a chain of amino acids in an
6
‘assembly line.’ Emphasizing the factory metaphor, the chain rests while a part is added, then
slides forward and rests again while the next part is added. As microbiologist Dean Kenyon (San
Francisco State University) enthusiastically summarizes the sequence: ‘This is absolutely mind
boggling to perceive at this scale of size such a finely tuned apparatus, a device, that bears the
marks of intelligent design and manufacture.’ (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 37, emphasis in video).
Figure 6: The nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and thymine, imaged as plastic parts (UMOL
40:57).
Figure 7: Nucleotides organized in DNA (UMOL 41:08).
7
Figure 8: ‘In a process known as ‘transcription,’ a molecular machine first unwinds a section of the DNA
helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule.’ (Meyer & Allen
2005, p. 35; UMOL 47:29).
Figure 9: ‘Another machine then copies these instructions to form a molecule known as “messenger
RNA.”’ (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 36; UMOL 47:40).
Figure 10: ‘The messenger RNA strand is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome.
After attaching itself securely, the process of translation begins. Inside the ribosome, a molecular
assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids.’ (Meyer & Allen 2005, p. 36; UMOL
48:45).
8
The Apparent Paradox of UMOL
UMOL argues that the bacterial flagellum and protein synthesis are ‘irreducibly complex’
systems, i. e. each system is disabled by the removal of any part. Therefore they could not have
evolved and they must have a designer. But in order to make this case, UMOL’s producers
adopt a Cartesian body, part of the same de-spiritualized, mechanistic universe that contributed
to the abandonment of the God hypothesis in modern science. One could ask how such a
mechanical universe is compatible with biblical metaphor, in which mountains burst into song,
trees clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12), rocks threaten to cry out (Luke 19:40), and the world groans
in anticipation of redemption (Romans 8:22). One could also ask, just as the contemporaries of
Boyle and Newton asked, what God would do following the work of design and creation.
Following Descartes, Boyle, and Newton, Meyer & Allen could assign housekeeping chores like
tweaking the creation when necessary or implanting souls into the cyborg-like collection of
machines that UMOL reveals people to be. But such a God would be close to the God of the
Deists and far from the active, personal God of Evangelical Christianity. Thus UMOL appears
to lead its viewers into a religious cul-de-sac, trading belief in an active God for belief in a
designer.
Yet we can resolve this paradox, at least partially, by remembering that although
ID/creationism rejects evolution and emphasizes ancient texts, it is not a primitivist movement
but a decidedly modern one (Marsden 1995). A cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation was
the abandonment of allegorical readings of scripture in favor of its literal, common-sense
interpretation. This de-mystification of scripture paralleled the de-spiritualization of the physical
world (Harrison 2006). In American fundamentalism, this style of biblical interpretation became
highly inductive: without preconceived ideas, one reads the “facts” of scripture and collects them
9
into principles and conclusions. Under the influence of Scottish Common Sense philosopher
Thomas Reid, this Baconian approach to scriptural interpretation found its parallel in a Baconian
approach to science among American fundamentalists (Marsden 1980, 1984, 1991; Taylor 1996).
Law Professor Phillip Johnson (University of California at Berkely) expresses this naïve
inductivism in UMOL: ‘The argument for intelligent design is based upon observation of the
facts. Now that’s my definition of good science. It’s observation of the facts.’ (Meyer & Allen
2005, p. 45). Invoking a Cartesian world view and a naïve-inductivist philosophy of science,
UMOL appeals to familiar Baconian themes in Christian fundamentalism. Resonance with these
themes more than counterbalances the risk that God will become irrelevant in its mechanistic
worldview.
Science educators are typically advised to help our creationist students by emphasizing
the “nature of science.” (see, e. g. National Academy of Sciences 1998). By clearly demarcating
science from religion, it is hoped that creationists will recognize that creationism is a religious
practice rather than a scientific practice. However, UMOL casts doubt on the utility of such a
strategy. Where science educators explain that in science, divine intervention is disqualified as
an explanatory principle for natural processes, viewers of UMOL can readily agree: after
creation, the physical world appears to operate without divine intervention. Should science
educators present the highly inductive version of the ‘scientific method’ typically found in
science textbooks, this will reinforce the naïve-inductivist view of science already professed by
creationists. Therefore without a sophisticated post-Baconian version of the nature of science (e.
g. Matthews, 1994; McComas, 1998), nature-of-science education is unlikely to change the
minds of creationist students.
10
REFERENCES
Answers in Genesis: 2006, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Burtt, E. A.: 1932, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (Revised ed.),
Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.
CBS News: 2005, ‘Poll: Majority Reject Evolution,’ retrieved November 1, 2005, from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Creation Research Society: 2006, from http://www.creationresearch.org/
Descartes, R.:1641, Meditations on First Philosophy, retrieved June 16, 2006, from
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm
Dijksterhuis, E. J.: 1961, The Mechanization of the World Picture (C. Dikshoorn, trans.), Oxford
University Press, New York.
Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture: 2006, from http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Greene, J. C.: 1959, The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western Thought, The
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Harrison, P.: 2006, ‘The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science’, Science and Christian
Belief, 18(2), 115-132.
Institute for Creation Research: 2006, from http://www.icr.org/
Marsden, G. M.: 1980, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of TwentiethCentury Evangelicalism, 1870-1925, Oxford University Press, New York.
Marsden, G. M.: 1984, ‘Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science’. In A. Montagu (ed.)
Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, New York, 95-116.
Marsden, G. M.: 1991, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Marsden, G. M.: 1995, ‘By Primitivism Possessed: How Useful is the Concept "Primitivism" for
Understanding American Fundamentalism?’ In R. T. Hughes (ed.), The Primitive
Church in the Modern World, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Matthews, M. R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science,
Routledge, New York.
McComas, W. F. (ed.): 1998, The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and
Strategies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Meyer, S. C., & Allen, W. P. (writers): 2002, Unlocking the mystery of life: The case for
intelligent design [DVD], Illustra Media, USA.
Meyer, S. C., & Allen, W. P. (writers: 2004, Where Does the Evidence Lead?: Exploring the
Theory of Intelligent Design [DVD], Illustra Media, USA.
Meyer, S. C., & Allen, W. P.: 2005, Unlocking the Mystery of Life Complete Script Draft,
retrieved June 2006, from
http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.pdf
National Academy of Sciences: 1998, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Peters, T.: 2000, God--the World's Future: Systematic Theology for a New Era (2nd ed.),
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Ray, K.: 2006, Personal Communication.
Ribas, A.: 2003, ‘Leibniz' Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese and the LeibnizClarke Controversy’, Philosophy East and West, 53(1), 64-86.
Ryle, G.: 1984/1949, The Concept of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
11
Scott, W. L.: 1970, The Conflict Between Atomism and Conservation Theory, 1644-1860,
Elsevier Publishing Company, New York.
Taylor, C. A.: 1996, Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation, University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, WI.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: 2005, Public Divided on Origins of Life, retrieved
July 11, 2006, from http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/
Westfall, R. S.: 1971, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
12